C# vs. C++

[Daniel James]

Re: C# vs. C++

In article news:<485ee160$ 0$90264$1472629 8@news.sunsite. dk>, Arne
Vajhøj wrote:

But new mainstream OS's are rather rare. I think the newest
must be Linux from 1991.

Symbian OS is newer -- first released (as EPOC32) in 1997.

It is written in C++, albeit using a rather odd dialect (forced upon it
in part by the quality of the GNU cross-compilation toolchain for ARM
at the time it was written, and partly by certain in-house coding
styles at Psion).

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Daniel James]

Re: C# vs. C++

In article news:<485eef0c$ 0$90272$1472629 8@news.sunsite. dk>, Arne
Vajhøj wrote:

If you teach C++ to 50 students, then you may get 10 great
programmers and 40 that swear never to try and program again.

I'd call that a positive result! Certainly better than getting 50
mediocre programmers.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Daniel James]

Re: C# vs. C++

In article news:<Lo-dneHtSdxF68HVnZ 2dnUVZ_tXinZ2d@ earthlink.com>,
Michael D. Ober wrote:

Huh? Our entire telecommunicati ons industry is written in C and C++
and C++ is still the way to go for embedded systems.

Not quite ... Ericsson's telephone exchange software is written in
Haskell, for example. They claim that it could not be written to run so
efficiently in C or C++.

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Cholo Lennon]

Re: C# vs. C++

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

Cholo Lennon wrote:

>"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kescribió en el mensaje
>news:485d64a7$ 0$90268$1472629 8@news.sunsite. dk...

>>Nick wrote:
>>>Curious. I wouldn't see C# as fundamentally better for writing
>>>Object-oriented code. I see the two languages as essentially the
>>>same but C# has removed the need for explicit memory management
>>>and a few other house keeping issues
>>More access levels, interfaces and delegates seems
>>to me to be features that makes good OOP easier.

>>
>Just some clarification: In C++ you have interfaces (abstract
>classes) and delegates (std::tr1::func tion or boost::function )

>
C# also has abstract classes and even though abstract classes can
be used instead of interfaces, then interfaces especially when
combined with the only inherit from one class but implement
multiple interfaces rules really guide users towards good
OOP style.

It's a point of view...

>
TR1 is fine, but strictly speaking it is not C++ yet (it may
be in 2009 rumors say).
>

Well, some compilers are distributing partial tr1 implementations and function
is included. BTW boost::function (in which std::tr1::funct ion is based) has many
years and is widely used in modern C++ code / production code.


Regards

--
Cholo Lennon
Bs.As.
ARG

[Hendrik Schober]

Re: C# vs. C++

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

Hendrik Schober wrote:

>MC <for.address.lo ok@www.ai.uga.e du.slash.mcwrot e:

>>[...]
>>That is a good point. Object-oriented programming wasn't mature when C++ came into use. There is a lot of bad C++ code in the
>>world, and C++ makes it easy to write bad code and create programs that crash.
>>>
>>I think C will outlive C++. C is going to continue to be a good language for small routines where performance is paramount. For
>>such things, I find myself writing "C-barely-plus-plus," which is C with slight use of the C++ extensions. [...]

>>
> IMO these to paragraphs contradict each other. C makes it a lot
> easier to write bad, crashing code, than C++ does.

>
Since C++ support practically all of C then ...

...if C++ wouldn't do so much to make it easy to write
better, safer code, my above statement wouldn't make
sense. Yes. Your point?

Arne

Schobi

[cj]

Re: C# vs. C++

Geesh, I sure got a lot of posts on that one. I'm not sure where I'm
headed but I appreciate the opinions.


cj wrote:

I don't want to start a war but why would I choose one over the other?
First and foremost I need to keep in mind marketability of the skill and
the future of the language.
>
I'm getting the feeling I'll be moving from VB to one or the other. I
have some say on which but perhaps not the final decision. I have used
C and C++ a little bit years ago. I have no experience in C#. I don't
expect it to be that difficult but I hate remembering the idiosyncrasies
of too many languages so I'd like to pick one C# or C++ and make the
right choice.

[Adhal]

Re: C# vs. C++

cj wrote:

Geesh, I sure got a lot of posts on that one. I'm not sure where I'm
headed but I appreciate the opinions.
>

lol Is become a C++ forum. Nice thread.

Learn a bit of C++ first, even just the basics you will appreciated C# more. Don't go into depth
just basics.

I knew a bit of C and C++ and currently learning C#. I love C# because it reminds me of C and has
encouraged me to learn C++. Once I am more confident in C# I will begin to dig in C++.

Also note all games are written in C & C++. Well most mainstream commercial games. C++ is not going
to die out within our lifetime.

Those who say is dying are talking rubbish and hype. C++ programmers will die out long before C++.
That is the most likely outcome, and watch salaries soar.


--
Adhal Freeware

http://www.adhal.org

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: C# vs. C++

Hendrik Schober wrote:

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>Hendrik Schober wrote:

>>MC <for.address.lo ok@www.ai.uga.e du.slash.mcwrot e:
>>>[...]
>>>That is a good point. Object-oriented programming wasn't mature
>>>when C++ came into use. There is a lot of bad C++ code in the
>>>world, and C++ makes it easy to write bad code and create programs
>>>that crash.
>>>>
>>>I think C will outlive C++. C is going to continue to be a good
>>>language for small routines where performance is paramount. For
>>>such things, I find myself writing "C-barely-plus-plus," which is C
>>>with slight use of the C++ extensions. [...]
>>>
>> IMO these to paragraphs contradict each other. C makes it a lot
>> easier to write bad, crashing code, than C++ does.

>>
>Since C++ support practically all of C then ...

>
...if C++ wouldn't do so much to make it easy to write
better, safer code, my above statement wouldn't make
sense. Yes. Your point?

Should be obvious.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: C# vs. C++

Cholo Lennon wrote:

Arne Vajhøj wrote:

>Cholo Lennon wrote:

>>"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kescribió en el mensaje
>>news:485d64a7 $0$90268$147262 98@news.sunsite .dk...
>>>Nick wrote:
>>>>Curious. I wouldn't see C# as fundamentally better for writing
>>>>Object-oriented code. I see the two languages as essentially the
>>>>same but C# has removed the need for explicit memory management
>>>>and a few other house keeping issues
>>>More access levels, interfaces and delegates seems
>>>to me to be features that makes good OOP easier.
>>Just some clarification: In C++ you have interfaces (abstract
>>classes) and delegates (std::tr1::func tion or boost::function )

>C# also has abstract classes and even though abstract classes can
>be used instead of interfaces, then interfaces especially when
>combined with the only inherit from one class but implement
>multiple interfaces rules really guide users towards good
>OOP style.

>
It's a point of view...
>

>TR1 is fine, but strictly speaking it is not C++ yet (it may
>be in 2009 rumors say).

>
Well, some compilers are distributing partial tr1 implementations and function
is included. BTW boost::function (in which std::tr1::funct ion is based) has many
years and is widely used in modern C++ code / production code.

boost != C++

But on the other side:
- very few are using only ANSI features
- boost is widely used
- the C++ standardization process is let us call it thorough
so maybe it is a more fair comparison to include boost in C++
functionality.

Arne

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Re: C# vs. C++

Daniel James wrote:

In article news:<485eef0c$ 0$90272$1472629 8@news.sunsite. dk>, Arne
Vajhøj wrote:

>If you teach C++ to 50 students, then you may get 10 great
>programmers and 40 that swear never to try and program again.

>
I'd call that a positive result! Certainly better than getting 50
mediocre programmers.

Seen from a puristic point of view I will agree. But there
is this aspect of the world called money - we need millions
of programmers to code business apps.

Arne

[Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]]

Re: C# vs. C++

Don't confuse flexibility with lack of safety -- you can have the one

without the other.

How is this confused? My point was C# is not less flexible because it allows
pointer tricks, something that C++ claims as an advantage, safety or lack of
it has nothing to do with the argument. At the end of the day, you have the
best of both worlds in C#.

The single most glaringly obvious example of what I mean is that you
can't do template metaprogramming in C#, but there are others.

And what is that good for? I wouldn't go searching for obscure features to
compare against C#. What I would do is compare common code paths and
implementation. Like it or not, C++ is a dying sport. Holding on to
obscurities will not inject life into it.

more strictly, to provide a plugin replacement for Java

That's new. By the same token C++ was what to C?

It's time to let go of C++. Really, it is. It's done for.

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99
-------------------------------------------------------


"Daniel James" <wastebasket@no spam.aaisp.orgw rote in message
news:VA.0000144 1.4776d57a@nosp am.aaisp.org...

In article news:<87D65B9A-4847-402A-B8BF-94D6314A2C7A@mi crosoft.com>,
Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP] wrote:

>Why is it more powerful and more flexible? I thought you could write
>'unsafe' code in C#.

>
Don't confuse flexibility with lack of safety -- you can have the one
without the other.
>
Why is C++ more powerful than C#? Because you can do more things with
it, in more ways. C# is designed to support the "Object Oriented"
paradigm (or, more strictly, to provide a plugin replacement for Java
-- which is an almost religiously 'pure' OO language) but C++ is a
multi-paradigm language -- it can "do OOP", but it can be used to
implement other designs as well.
>
The single most glaringly obvious example of what I mean is that you
can't do template metaprogramming in C#, but there are others.
>
Cheers,
Daniel.
>
>
>
>

[Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]]

Re: C# vs. C++

What's replacing them for the real-time control portions of the code?
Real time control where? If you are talking at the switch level, that's C
code. Period. I'm not aware of any of the major telecom players who would
touch that code because it is business critical. You could interpret that as
C is superior. I'll interpret it as don't mess with it because it ain't
broke.

Anything north of the switch to include the billing platforms, call routing
on up to client reporting and statistics is not C and not C++.

I once wrote a C# proof of concept for a company just to show that C# could
outperform C for billing and summarization. It worked, hands down, because
C# has a better memory allocation model for memory intensive applications,
which billing and summarization is. However, nobody wanted me to implement
the concept in the real world because the existing application was 'mission
critical'. go figure. C at the real time portion of the code is not there
because it brings any major advantage over what we have today.

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99
-------------------------------------------------------


"Michael D. Ober" <obermd.@.alum. mit.edu.nospam. wrote in message
news:MLadnZvSnN EvHMPVnZ2dnUVZ_ i2dnZ2d@earthli nk.com...

"Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]" <vapor dan using hot male spam filterwrote
in message news:EFB0949F-2E76-4B52-AF3A-DC9A709BB8FF@mi crosoft.com...

>>Huh? Our entire telecommunicati ons industry is written in C and C++

>>
>Sleight of hand. I worked for a few years in the telecommunicati ons
>industry. C and C++ happen to be entrenched there because at the time
>that was the dominant languages. As these pieces get re-written,
>rest-assured they won't be re-written in these languages because there's
>nothing to gain using these technologies in telecommunicati ons. I know,
>I've been there.
>>

>
What's replacing them for the real-time control portions of the code?
>
Mike.
>
>

[Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]]

Re: C# vs. C++

I agree 100%. I should have said earlier "if these pieces get re-written..."

--

Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]

[Shameless Author plug]
The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99
-------------------------------------------------------


"Arne Vajhøj" <arne@vajhoej.d kwrote in message
news:485eefe7$0 $90272$14726298 @news.sunsite.d k...

Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP] wrote:

>>Huh? Our entire telecommunicati ons industry is written in C and C++

>>
>Sleight of hand. I worked for a few years in the telecommunicati ons
>industry. C and C++ happen to be entrenched there because at the time
>that was the dominant languages. As these pieces get re-written,
>rest-assured they won't be re-written in these languages because there's
>nothing to gain using these technologies in telecommunicati ons. I know,
>I've been there.

>
Applications rarely get rewritten. I would expect most of the existing
C and C++ apps to continue running for a decade or two more. Just
think of how many 30 year old Cobol and PL/I code that are still around.
>
New apps will likely be written in something else (Java or .NET) unless
there are special reasons not to (hardware interfaces or real time
requirements or requirement for very low memory footprint).
>
Arne

[=?UTF-8?B?QXJuZSBWYWpow7hq?=]

Re: C# vs. C++

Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP] wrote:

>What's replacing them for the real-time control portions of the code?

Real time control where? If you are talking at the switch level, that's
C code. Period. I'm not aware of any of the major telecom players who
would touch that code because it is business critical. You could
interpret that as C is superior. I'll interpret it as don't mess with it
because it ain't broke.

Or the real time requirements and/or requirements for low
memory foot print does not lend itself to a C# solution.

[I don't know but I assume that a switch has relative
little memory]

Arne

[RFOG]

Re: C# vs. C++

Then, Alvin, next Windows will be done in C#?


"Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP]" <vapor dan using hot male spam filterwrote in
message news:101D0CAB-378E-4B1C-9F18-B2D243CEBF11@mi crosoft.com...

>Don't confuse flexibility with lack of safety -- you can have the one
>without the other.

>
How is this confused? My point was C# is not less flexible because it
allows pointer tricks, something that C++ claims as an advantage, safety
or lack of it has nothing to do with the argument. At the end of the day,
you have the best of both worlds in C#.
>

>The single most glaringly obvious example of what I mean is that you
>can't do template metaprogramming in C#, but there are others.

>
And what is that good for? I wouldn't go searching for obscure features to
compare against C#. What I would do is compare common code paths and
implementation. Like it or not, C++ is a dying sport. Holding on to
obscurities will not inject life into it.
>

>more strictly, to provide a plugin replacement for Java

That's new. By the same token C++ was what to C?
>
It's time to let go of C++. Really, it is. It's done for.
>
--
>
Regards,
Alvin Bruney [MVP ASP.NET]
>
[Shameless Author plug]
The O.W.C. Black Book, 2nd Edition
Exclusively on www.lulu.com/owc $19.99
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
"Daniel James" <wastebasket@no spam.aaisp.orgw rote in message
news:VA.0000144 1.4776d57a@nosp am.aaisp.org...

>In article news:<87D65B9A-4847-402A-B8BF-94D6314A2C7A@mi crosoft.com>,
>Alvin Bruney [ASP.NET MVP] wrote:

>>Why is it more powerful and more flexible? I thought you could write
>>'unsafe' code in C#.

>>
>Don't confuse flexibility with lack of safety -- you can have the one
>without the other.
>>
>Why is C++ more powerful than C#? Because you can do more things with
>it, in more ways. C# is designed to support the "Object Oriented"
>paradigm (or, more strictly, to provide a plugin replacement for Java
>-- which is an almost religiously 'pure' OO language) but C++ is a
>multi-paradigm language -- it can "do OOP", but it can be used to
>implement other designs as well.
>>
>The single most glaringly obvious example of what I mean is that you
>can't do template metaprogramming in C#, but there are others.
>>
>Cheers,
>Daniel.
>>
>>
>>
>>

--
Microsoft Visual C++ MVP
=============== =========
Mi blog sobre programación: http://geeks.ms/blogs/rfog
Momentos Leves: http://momentosleves.blogspot.com/
Cosas mías: http://rfog.blogsome.com/
Libros, ciencia ficción y programación
=============== =============== ==========
Una palabra mal colocada estropea el más bello pensamiento.
-- Francois Marie Arouet.